serving as a deacon after divorce

Uh oh. Public apology time. I confused ScottJ for JGreyhound.

Scott did not PM me and then misquote me. JGreyhound did.

My bad. Please forgive me.

 

Your stock just went up 10 percent.

 

1 Cor 7:16 is a continuation of what Paul started in verse 12. This is not the Lord's command, but is Pauls advice. For it reads:

But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.(NASB)

So, your theory that a brother or sister who had an unbelieving spouse leave them is still bound to them just doesn't hold water.

 

I disagree of course.

But on another note. Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that this new way of looking at the qualifications of deacons comes at a time when our society is redefining morality and standards and that divorce is rampant? Ya think maybe that we are a little too influenced by our times?

Here's a question for you. What if a man is a non-practicing homosexual. Could he be a deacon?

What if he claims he was born that way but knows it would be sin to consumate his desires so he remains abstinate?

Other than that one disposition in his life (that he doesn't act on) he is by all appearances a perfectly godly christian. Would that man be a suitable deacon?

 

The oldest interpretation going back to the early church seems to be that this is against polygamy. Several of the Reform era scholars held this same position. Some have held that it meant that a widower could not remarry.

There are alot of different perspectives on this. So my view is that we should drop our preconceived biases and read the text in the most literal, plain, consistent sense possible.

That's what I have attempted to do. Divorce can only be implied here... and that would under no circumstances limit the passage to divorce.

If you are going to say that "one woman man" applies to a lifetime then you should do so consistently rather than just applying it to divorce.

That's an evasion. It isn't about my opinion or yours. It is about having a coherent interpretation of this passage that can be consistently applied.

 

Thanks Bib.

No problem. All is forgiven.

To be honest, as bad as my memory is sometimes I am just relieved I didn't do something like that and then forget about it. I was really worried about that.

 

Now, answer a question for me:

If a married man has a non-physical romantic relationship with a woman at work, is he a one woman man? </font>[/QUOTE]El Guero, You still haven't answered my question. I answered yours after you reiterated it even before I had an opportunity to answer.

You have posted since I asked this question. Why won't you answer?

 

Are you serious? You are I guess. That's whats so scary.</font>[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be scary. It is the plain contextual reading of the passage.

Really? I'm sorry, I thought this was the "Serving as a deacon after divorce" thread...lol

Silly me. </font>[/QUOTE]It is. But it is not about whether divorce is the unforgiveable sin or not.

BTW, here we are after 14 pages and you still have not dealt with the consistency problem. I have been accused with being evasive but it is you guys who won't apply the principle consistently.

Which does the passage mean? Must a man be a "one woman man" for his lifetime or is present demonstrated character in view?

Those are simple questions that go to the very heart of interpretting this qualification.

 

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a non-practicing homosexual. That would be like a non-practicing murderer or a non-practicing adulterer. The Bible refers to sodomy as an abominable act.

Modern man has made it "what you are" instead of "what you do". (Of course, I believe "What you think about" is important too.")

A repentant sodomite is just as holy as a repentant whatever else.

Lacy

 

Now, answer a question for me:

If a married man has a non-physical romantic relationship with a woman at work, is he a one woman man? </font>[/QUOTE]El Guero, You still haven't answered my question. I answered yours after you reiterated it even before I had an opportunity to answer.

You have posted since I asked this question. Why won't you answer? </font>[/QUOTE]Still waiting El Guero.

You were insistent that I answer your question. Why are you evading mine?

 

Scott,

Did you say something?

 

Yes, I asked why you were evading this question after insisting that I answer your question:

 

Lacy Evans

... I like that post
... You know the more I read stuff on this board, the more I like simple Bible Truths
... When we quit re-interpreting Scripture, it is sure easy to know what you believe ... IMHO

 

Still evading El Guero? What are you so afraid of? It is a very simple, direct question. Not unlike yours.

 

Wow... and to think, just a few posts ago EG accused me of evading.

Since EG obviously recognizes that the only answer he can give here will demonstrate the fatal inconsistency of the interpretation he accepts for this passage, does anyone else want to try?

 

Still evading El Guero? No one coming to the rescue?

 

He's an adulterer.

 

He's an adulterer. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Diane.

So if he did this before marriage would he still be a "one woman man" if he married someone else?

Why? Why not?

 

Fornication and adultery are very different animals. The marriage covenant is indicative of the relationship a Christian has with Christ Jesus and is not to be defiled or broken. To say otherwise is to say a man is married to the first woman he has sex with. Scripture says marriage includes leaving and cleaving and not just 'sex'.

 

I am sorry Diane. You know that I agree with you most of the time and like you quite well... however you didn't answer my question.

Adulterers and fornicators fit in the broad category of not being "one women men". The passage in question does not say "divorcee, adulterer, or fornicator". It says "one woman man".

You are still trying to read marriage and divorce into this passage. Certainly it has an application to those two things but it is not contextually limited to those two things.

Here is my point that I would like you to attempt to refute:

Either this passage is dealing with current character or it means that any man who ever did anything before marriage that would be considered cheating after marriage is disqualified.

I have been accused and mocked on this thread but all I have asked for is a consistent interpretation from those who say this passage refers to "no divorce".